flipping through the car mags...

Ok... so I've flipped through the recent C&D... BMW 135i and M3... I am
really begining to wonder who buys mustang GT500s at the prices dealers
are charging.

Invoice Base Tested Dealer
135i 32110 35675 42875 ?
M3 51980 55875 64450 ?
GT500 38244 42915 ~46000 55000-62000


Now... as I read the tests, the BMW 135i is a tenth of a second slower
in raw acceleration than the GT500 0-60 and a half second in the 1/4
mile. The M3 a half second faster than the G500 0-60 and .2 sec faster
in the 1/4. Handling the GT500 is dead last of the three. Interior and
everything else the BMWs should beat the GT500 which suffers from being
a mustang, that is it suffers all the cost saving measures of being
based on a sub 20 grand base car.

So, who is buying them for ~60K? Why? I can see invoice, I can see
that. I can even see sticker... there's something about a bigger V8,
I get that, but the premium. Why bother? I could see paying $38K for
it. It's just not 20 grand better than the 135i as far as I can tell.
And the M3 is right in the same price range the dealers are asking for
the GT500. The GT500 is crude and stone age and harsh compared to an
M3. There's no rational reason here.

Time to go to the BMW dealer and see what might scare me away from a
135i. To buy new I want to be able to get 200K out of a car with a
minimum of hassle. Scott's tire expenses scare me away from corvettes
j/k. I really don't care much for vettes... I've been trying I just
don't. I might get over it yet.

Brent P wrote:

> Time to go to the BMW dealer and see what might scare me away from a
> 135i. To buy new I want to be able to get 200K out of a car with a
> minimum of hassle. Scott's tire expenses scare me away from corvettes

That's because he uses run-flats since the Corvette doesn't come with a
spare tire IIRC. I'm not sure about BMW models, but I know that Audi
models (recent ones at least) typically come with a full size spare tire.

On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 05:02:58 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote:

>Brent P wrote:
>
>> Time to go to the BMW dealer and see what might scare me away from a
>> 135i. To buy new I want to be able to get 200K out of a car with a
>> minimum of hassle. Scott's tire expenses scare me away from corvettes
>
>That's because he uses run-flats since the Corvette doesn't come with a
>spare tire IIRC. I'm not sure about BMW models, but I know that Audi
>models (recent ones at least) typically come with a full size spare tire.

The 135i has no spare, and comes on runflats. Although since the
135's tires are much smaller than the Corvette's (215s on the front
for god's sake) , the tire replacement costs for the 135i should be
less.

However, the maintenance costs on a modern BMW, once it's out of
warranty period, are high. Tire costs should be the least of his
worries if he really wants to keep a 135/335 for 200k miles.

In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:
>On Sun, 06 Apr 2008 22:21:22 -0500,
>(Brent P) wrote:
>
>>
>>Ok... so I've flipped through the recent C&D...
>
>Did you see the article on page 116 on how to behave when stopped by
>the police? I'm surprised you didn't comment on it...
>Matthew might want to read that article, as well.

Didn't get that far.... ad I already know... be a good little slave and
massa's employee might not beat you.

>>So, who is buying them for ~60K? Why?

>Ford fanatics?

I kinda doubt it. most ford fanatics seem rather ****ed at ford for not
meeting their promises.

>People who wish they could have bought the original
>Shelby way back when and can afford it now?

That's the height of stupidity. They didn't even use proper pin letters
for the shelby badge, they decided that was too expensive and went with
that 80's shelby logo off an omni.

>>Time to go to the BMW dealer and see what might scare me away from a
>>135i.

>C&D recommends that you spend the extra couple of grand and get the
>335i.

I haven't sat down to read the whole article yet. Just flipped through
to the test data as per the subject But I should have included the
335i

>>Scott's tire expenses scare me away from corvettes

>Oh, but my Z3 experiences haven't scared you away from BMWs??

All you mentioned was a fuel gage. But yeah, the repair thing does scare
me, but that's the same with GM.

>>I really don't care much for vettes...

>How do you know? Have you ever driven one? A *current* one?

It's not how they drive... it's just that I've not cared for the
styling, the BMW's even less so.

In article >, zmike6 wrote:
>On Mon, 07 Apr 2008 05:02:58 GMT, Arif Khokar >
>wrote:
>
>>Brent P wrote:
>>
>>> Time to go to the BMW dealer and see what might scare me away from a
>>> 135i. To buy new I want to be able to get 200K out of a car with a
>>> minimum of hassle. Scott's tire expenses scare me away from corvettes
>>
>>That's because he uses run-flats since the Corvette doesn't come with a
>>spare tire IIRC. I'm not sure about BMW models, but I know that Audi
>>models (recent ones at least) typically come with a full size spare tire.
>
>The 135i has no spare, and comes on runflats. Although since the
>135's tires are much smaller than the Corvette's (215s on the front
>for god's sake) , the tire replacement costs for the 135i should be
>less.
>
>However, the maintenance costs on a modern BMW, once it's out of
>warranty period, are high. Tire costs should be the least of his
>worries if he really wants to keep a 135/335 for 200k miles.

regular maintenance things don't bother me, I just pay for parts because
I do it myself. It's if things break that shouldn't... if it throws
alternators needs head gaskets, has bearings and CV joints that go bad,
etc etc....

In article >, Scott in SoCal wrote:

>>The 135i has no spare, and comes on runflats. Although since the
>>135's tires are much smaller than the Corvette's (215s on the front
>>for god's sake) , the tire replacement costs for the 135i should be
>>less.
>
>Don't be so sure. Corvette tires are wider on the back than on the
>front, and yet each of my rear tires were about $100 cheaper than the
>fronts.

I know they all have run-flats. I prefer a spare, but the tire thing was
a joke.

>>However, the maintenance costs on a modern BMW, once it's out of
>>warranty period, are high. Tire costs should be the least of his
>>worries if he really wants to keep a 135/335 for 200k miles.

>I guess I never mentioned the ~$500 brake job on my wife's Z3 - since
>the high performance rotors are so thin, they cannot be turned and
>must be replaced. Or so I was told.

Well, let's see... front rotor replacement + pads on my mustang is like
$440 (rotor price recently increased to about $175 each, pads around
$90) just for parts. (2000 cobra R brembo brakes) Although in ~120K I've
only replaced the rotors once. They can't be turned (slotted) and don't
need to be. It's getting so I'll need to replace rotors again... might
get another set pads on the ones on there. Either I'll buy a car with
the same sort of brakes or put them on the car so brake jobs will remain
expensive regardless.

GM... why the hell do the lower vettes use two piston sliding caliper
front brakes? Single pison sliders for the rear. Unacceptable for that
money. Even cheap-ass ford put 4-piston brembos on the GT500. ford's web
site links to svt for the gt500, where it's not even listed. US car
brands are all hype about BS and don't bother with technical info.